JUNNOO SINGH Vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal against an order of a learned single judge of this court dismissing a second appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. One Smt. Rajpatti and'certain other persons executed a sale deed of certain zamindari property on 25-11-1943 in favour of Jhunnoo Singh appellant. Lalta Singh plaintiff who is now dead and is represented by respondents 1 and 2 instituted a suit for pre-emption of the property conveyed by the sale deed. He impleaded Munnoo Singh brother of Jhunnoo Singh as a defendant in the suit. It was alleged in the plaint that the sale had taken place in favour of Munnu Singh. Jhunnoo Singh was not impleaded in the suit. There was no allegation in the plaint that Jhunnoo Singh was merely a benamidar for Munnu Singh or that Munnoo Singh was the karta of the joint Hindu family of which Jhunnoo Singh was a junior member. In the plaint it was alleged that the sale consideration was much smaller than that shown in the sale deed.

(3.) Munnoo Singh contested the suit. He did not contest the allegation that Re was the transferee of the property but he alleged that the consideration shown in the sale deed was true and that the sale had taken place with Lalta Singh's consent and that therefore the suit was barred by the principle of estoppel. In spite of the contest raised by Munnoo Singh the suit was decreed. When Lalta Singh executed his decree for being put in possession of the property, he was resisted by Jhunnoo Singh who claimed that he had purchased the property and Munnoo Singh had nothing to do with it. Thereupon Lalta Singh instituted the suits which has given rise to this appeal against Jhunnoo Singh, Munnoo Singh and three other persons and it was alleged that all these persons were members of a joint Hindu family of which Munnoo Singh was the karta, that the sale deed though taken in the name of Jhunnoo Singh was really in favour of the entire joint family and that in the previous suit Munnoo Singh represented the joint family, and that all members of the joint family were bound by the decision of the suit. The relief claimed was for a declaration that the defendants were bound by the decree passed in the pre-emption suit.